SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10.6.1991 this petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before Supreme Court seeking direction against Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking [respondent No.6(a) to treat the petitioners as having been appointed in the office of Assistant Controllers/Assistant Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-3,275 from the date of their initial appointment on the generation/ transmission wing as work charge employees; (b) to treat the petitioners, who are diploma holders as Assistant Controllers/Assistant supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-3,275 from the date of initial engagement, to pay them consequential benefits and to set aside letter dated 16.5.1991 regularising the services of some of the petitioners as Khalasis/Generation Mate Grade-II; and (c) to direct respondent No.6 not to regularise the other petitioners as Khalasis/Generation Mate Grade-II.

(2.) After respondent No.6 filed its counter-affidavit on 20.8.1991, the supreme court on 29.8.1991 ordered transfer of the writ petition to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. During pendency of the petitions, ITI Technicians Association of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) through its General Secretary sought its impleadment which was allowed. Amended memo of parties was filed. ITI Technicians Association, DESU (respondent No 8) also filed its counter-affidavit to the writ petition. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of respondents Nos.6 and 8. No other respondent has filed counter-affidavit.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and been taken through the entire record. The Petitioners are 92 in number and it is their grievance that some of them, who are diploma holders under compulsion and non availability of employment had taken and accepted the work charge appointments offered to them by the respondent and further accepted the next higher posts as and when chances came through different direct recruitment. Some of the petitioners are work charge, some of them are Technical Helpers, Some of them are Assistant Operators and Operators. The Petitioners are in various levels of the very preliminary stage of the minimum employment, which is offered to similarly situated diploma holders within the same department. They say that because of the policy of respondent No. 6, the petitioners who are diploma holders are made to work on a post much lower than to which they otherwise are entitled to. They have been working in the Generation wing whereas different policy is adopted by respondent No.6 in Distribution Wing or Transmission Wing. The petitioners have alleged discrimination in the matter of employment.